While Heartland wants to position the conference as a “smashing success,” the New York Times, CNN - even that raving left-wing apology sheet the Wall Street Journal - have all lifted their delicate hands and snickered. CNN, in a spot that left the cool dudes at Newsbusters apoplectic, went so far as to call the assembled skeptics “flat earthers.” (click on the seventh item here for Miles O'Brien's actual video.)

It's interesting, per Andy Revkin's New York Times piece, that the coal industry's pet scientist, Pat Michaels, stood up at the conference, acknowledged that humans are causing climate change and predicted a three-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase this century (a relative disaster scenario, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Then he said that was really no problem and that we shouldn't bother taking any action to prevent this from happening.

If sowing confusion is the goal, these guys are still on their game. But if they were hoping to be taken seriously, alas, time, climate and public understanding has passed them by.

Notice the great coverage they got in the National Spot? The Post printed a Fred Singer fairy tale and an Open Letter to UN Secretary Bam without so much as suggesting this gang of clowns were connected to right wing think tanks and the fossil fuel industry. RealClimate.org has a great review of many of the signatories.

Here’s the essential common core of hatred and destruction in the doctrines of Communism, Nazism, and Environmentalism. Only the concretes differ, not the fundamental principle of hatred for human life and happiness.

Communism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes monopolies, depressions, and exploitation of workers by capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the benefit of the working class and the Socialist State. Capitalists and landowners must be exterminated for the benefit of the proletariat.

Nazism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes racial impurity, national decline, and exploitation of German workers by Jewish capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of the Aryan master race and the National Socialist State. Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs must be exterminated for the benefit of the German Nation.

Environmentalism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes global warming, acid rain, and ozone depletion. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of other species—our “fellow biota”—and for the good of the planet, under the auspices of international treaties and a nascent Global Socialist State: the UN. Most of the human race must be exterminated for the benefit of exploited species and the planet. (This is what the environmentalist “extremists” already openly say. The “moderates” merely want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent and thereby reduce the American standard of living to that of a third world country, with a third world country’s infant mortality and life expectancy.)

I wouldn’t know George Reisman from a blue plate special, so I don’t really know how to react to this (or whether to bother …). I am going to go find out more, and offer this URL for anyone else who is curious. http://www.georgereisman.com/blog/

ABC’s kstp link (below) to kstp video shows bad-mouthing by “disingenuous” Paul Emmer and his nonsense group called GlobalWarmingScam - a scam in itself! http://kstp.com/article/stories/S366211.shtml?cat=206

I can’t help noticing that recently the argument that dealing with AGW will erode people’s freedoms and subject them to the power of the UN, a “world-wide socialist organization” has been coming through loud and clear, even at the expense of the “message” that humans aren’t the cause etc. They are clearly returning to their roots, as Oreskes’ lecture, linked elsewhere on this blog, so clearly identified.

The deniers are increasingly making the point that, although the science of AGW is not a right/left political issue, the way we approach dealing with the consequences IS, and that terrifies their little free-market souls.

So, because I want the free market to deliver me clean water I can drink, clean air I can breath, fruits and vegetables that aren’t contaminated with pesticides, and power generated by something other then burning fossil fuels I’m a Nazi? That’s a great leap, especially since the Nazi’s exterminated 6 million Jews for simply breathing, let alone trying to actually make their world better.

Sure, there are probably some on the extreme fringe of environmentallism who would love to reduce our standard of living, but what’s wrong wiith asking the market economy to solve some of the problems it created? Why can’t we say to coal burning utilities that we’re happy to pay for their power, as long as they invest in technologies to keep the products of combustion from destroying the atmosphere? Seems to me we did just that in the 1980’s to eliminate acid rain, and I don’t remember a slew of coal fired power plants winking out of existance.

You sound like another “keep the government off my back” libertarian, using the Global climate Change issue to take back handed swipes at governemnt regulation. if that’s your position, fine, but just be up front about it, and leave the environment out of the equation.

As someone with some libertarian leanings, I’d prefer if people (from whatever political philosophy) would argue policy on the political bases and argue science on scientific bases. I appreciate your comment.

I did some googling on Reisman and unfortunately the guy is for real. Loopy, but real. He was closely associated with Ayn Rand (what was your first clue?), and his blog at http://www.georgereisman.com/blog/ is pretty scary.

George, (if you really are George or whoever you may be) environmentalism is not about destruction but preservation and restoration of the world which sustains our lives (the core of environmentalism).

Likening failed nationalistic ideologies of the past to environmentalism is ridiculous - because really the link you are making with these ideas is based on incredibly distorted social implications. Exterminating people is not part of environmentalism.

Environmentalism is a global concern people have because they realize their dependance on the environment to thrive and survive. As natural beings we are all plugged into the environment whether we like it or not. Get with the future George!

If you want to check out a funny (and interesting) video about our trip to the 2008 International Climate Change Conference – ie. “The Skeptic Tank”, check out this link. From Monckton of Brenchley to the head of the Heartland Institute – we got ‘em all…Enjoy!

Meanwhile, the key message from the conference that seems to be spreading around in wingnut circles is this:

John Coleman Is Going To Sue Al Gore w00t w00t w00t!!!1111111

No, the key message isn’t the “science”. Or the call for inaction. Or fr33dom. The key message is that Coleman is going to sue Gore. (http://tinyurl.com/24uom5)

Holy batman, this is stupid. Wait, not just stupid. This is beyond stupid.

* * *

… Then again, I guess there’s method in this stupid. It’s a good way to conjure up an image of some sort of Great Apocalyptic Struggle Between The Righteous Defenders Of Freedom And Al Gore The Antichrist. And when there’s an impending “struggle”, there’ll be a fake impression of “doubt”. Even though the doubt isn’t in the science itself.

coming through loud and clear, is very simple: “I’m alright, Jack – don’t mess with me! I have the right to do whatever I damned well please regardless of the consequences, and you’ve got no business regulating anything.”

He founded the Weather Channel. Now, I do not mean in any way to denigrate weathermen/weatherwomen and/or meteorologists. But this guy is over-stepping his bounds. He may be able to do the weather forecast, but that doesn’t qualify him to trash climate science.

His Comment about reporting accurate weather was directed to Heidi Cullen (the Weather Channel)..I think. After all for her to say that Climatologist should have their Certification removed if they did not agree with AGW, was also over-stepping her bounds.

First, I’d like to see Cullen’s actual quote. The woman is both smart and reasonable and I suspect the source material here would bear that out.

Second, if a weather forecaster chose to “disagree” about whether the sun was shining or about which way the wind was blowing - and how hard - that would be his or her right as an individual. After all, life is all a matter of personal perception and we don’t want to go around stifling creativity. But neither would I want to hire such a person to tell me what clothes to take camping for the weekend.

We wouldn’t hesitate to strip the certification from a rogue engineer who decided to challenge the theory of gravity, why exactly would we rise to defend climatologists who refuse to read up on their area of “expertise” and choose instead to side with contrarians who are ideologically driven and, often, financially corrupt?

“side with contrarians who are ideologically driven and, often, financially corrupt?” And the AGW side is driven by? . As a Tax payer I am not impress with these New Taxes EI the CO2 tax in BC.
Heidi Cullen.
” I’d like to take that suggestion a step further. If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. (One good resource if you don’t have a lot of time is the Pew Center’s Climate Change 101.)

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn’t agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It’s not a political statement…it’s just an incorrect statement.

I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political. But that’s why talking about the science is so important!”

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_11392.html

How come no one from the AGW groups were present at the New York meeting last week? The Invitation was there..why not attend? Would it not have been the perfect forum to debate / confront this issue?

“The Invitation was there..why not attend? Would it not have been the perfect forum to debate / confront this issue?”

The issue has been “debated” countless times. No amount of “debate” will ever be enough for you guys.

It’s like the Dover trial. The IDists totally got pwned, but did that stop them? Did they admit they were wrong? Nope. They just continued with their nonsense, except under a different guise – before, they called ID a “theory”, now they just call it a “philosophy”.

So yeah, any calls for “debate” are just an excuse to make noise. We know.

“enough for you guys” This should not be a Us vs Them debate… I am a 59.. No science degree just a Plumber(I know bovine dropping):-) and I want to know what my taxes are being spend on.
If am told something and if it does not make any sense? I ask questions. ..and that’s wrong?

The scientists have been saying for many years that global warming is happening and that it is being caused by human activities. Wilbert, climate change is going to have serious effects on all of us, particularly on agriculture and therefore our food supplies, and in some places on water availability. We need to act as individuals, but our governments also need to act decisively to stop the harm we are doing to ourselves and to our home.

If you have suggestions on how to reduce our use of oil, gas, coal and other dirty fuels, bring ‘em out. We waste a lot now in our daily lives, but also industries that produce greenhouse gas have to be forced to clean up their acts. Our governments have not had the guts or the political will to regulate them enough.

People are forced to stop at red lights when they are driving. That way they are less likely to kill someone who is driving through a green light. These industries are taking our resources and making us pay a lot for their products; so why should we allow them to damage our environment without making them pay for it? Why should they be able to poison us?

There are several greenhouse gases including CO2, methane, etc.

Here’s a good source to counter some of the BS you have probably been reading, Wilbert. http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

“People are forced to stop at red lights when they are driving.” No they are not force they make a choice it is different.. Being force is when the Law makers decide that an Incandescent lamp is gone and you are “force” to buy a CFL type.. As a Consumer I want the choice between the two type of Lamps. Is it not California who want to use Remote control to set the Home thermostat temperature without a say from the home owners?
You said the BS I have been reading.. Well I have also been reading this site/forum/blog..:-)

There’s nothing “us vs. them” about admitting to being wrong. Global warming is either serious or not serious. It cannot be both. One position is right, the other is wrong. And if you’re wrong, you just admit you’re wrong, and you change your position and move on.

But it’s clear you don’t want that. You don’t want to admit your position may be wrong. Well, that’s your problem (for identifying your very self with a position), not mine.

“No science degree just a Plumber(I know bovine dropping):-) and I want to know what my taxes are being spend on.”

Formal academic credentials aren’t the only measure of a scientists credibility but, since you want to play that game, who do you think should be more knowledgeable about climate - a guy with a PhD in meteorology or an oceanographer and computer programmer (Andy Weaver) who identifies himself as a “climatologist”.

Just askin’.

BTW, I have no particular beef with Weaver. He’s a decent individual and much less prone to unscientific raving than some other members of the brotherhood (eg. Hansen).

Bottom line is that not very many institutions issue degrees labelled “climatologist” and there are PhDs on both sides of the debate who call themselves climatologists because of their interest and activity in the field.

Hi Guys; Just a heads up!
If you start now you should be able work up a good smear for all of the engineers in this poll before the word gets out.
I am sure you can spin it to show they are all shills, crackpots and idiots.
(since that is what desmog was invented to do)

Supervisory meteorologists with NOAA’s National Weather Service claimed that Gore’s book in 1992 on global warming book was politicallly motivated. During the 1993 Midwest flood, NWS supervisors refused national media requests to talk about climate change in relation to unprecedented heavy rainfall that year.

NWS has been embarrassed by Gore’s speaking out on global warming. NWS have viewed weather and climate as their turf. Their distain for Gore may have cost Gore the election in 2000 in that NWS supervisors used their public offices (with 5500 employees in the US) to degrade Al Gore for more than a decade.

"Fossil-fuel companies have spent millions funding anti-global-warming think tanks, purposely creating a climate of doubt around the science. DeSmogBlog is the antidote to that obfuscation." ~ BRYAN WALSH, TIME MAGAZINE